Dealing with this kind of issue always feels like walking a tight-rope. On the one hand, it’s very easy to have some kind of kneejerk reaction, to use the Cologne incident to justify outright prejudice against a particular group. On the other hand, it’s also very easy for timidity to get in the way of the truth; people may ignore the truth because it doesn’t fit with their narrative and political aims, or refuse to speak it for fear of being branded “racist”. From a legal point of view, the ethnicity and origin of the perpetrators is indeed irrelevant; they should be viewed as self-responsible individuals, and treated the same way as anyone else who commits a crime. However, there is also a political and cultural perspective on this issue; from that perspective, the origin of the perpetrators does matter.

It doesn’t take a genius to surmise that a sudden spike in sexual assaults committed by Arab and North African men in Germany must have some kind of causal connection with a sudden spike in the immigration of such men to that country. The men didn’t appear out of thin air, and their behaviour isn’t random and inexplicable; the men came from countries where misogyny is rife, and they have brought that misogyny with them to their new country. It isn’t racist to point that out. Neither does it constitute “blaming the refugees” or even “blaming immigrants”. The problem is not immigrants or refugees; the problem is certain young men who have adopted the values of a misogynistic culture and who refuse to adapt to their new surroundings.

Women protesting in Cologne after news of the attacks came out. (Photo: BBC News)

So what is the appropriate political response? First, we must take a zero-tolerance policy towards immigrants who refuse to adapt to the basic laws and values of their new home. If, in an act of compassion, you let a destitute stranger into your house, and the stranger decided to repay your kindness by assaulting a member of your household, what would you do? I imagine you would kick them out. The same logic should apply at a national level: those who are taken in should be taken in with the proviso that they are willing to obey the law and to uphold the nation’s fundamental values. Those who blatantly disregard this proviso should not be allowed to stay any longer.

Taking a tough line on those who break the law and abuse our kindness, increasing security and reducing the inflow of migrants in order to leave more time for proper integration to occur—these actions are all necessary but insufficient. The most important response to Cologne should be a proud, unashamed defence of European culture and institutions. The best thing about Western Europe is its atmosphere of liberality and tolerance. Western Europe is a place where people of different races and religions live side by side. It is the safest place in the world for women and LGBT people. All of that could change however, unless we make the effort to reject any form of cultural barbarism, to uphold the rule of law, to uphold democracy, and to expect all citizens to conduct themselves in a manner that does not infringe on the freedom and privacy of others.

A delicate balance needs to be wrought here. We mustn’t listen to those on the extreme right who want to end all immigration and persecute all Muslims. Neither must we listen to multiculturalists and relativists who think it’s racist to assert that any set of cultural values, laws or political institutions can be superior to any other. We need to be practical and we need to be truthful. The superiority of the European attitude and way of life is the reason why refugees want to come here in the first place. If we refuse to defend what makes Europe special, if we refuse to oppose barbaric ideas and practices, we are betraying the refugees just as much as we are betraying ourselves.

Adam Fitchett, our Editor-in-Chief, is a 21-year-old student of neuroscience from Worthing in West Sussex. He describes himself as "arguably libertarian" because he believes that increasing personal freedom and decentralising power are prerequisites for human fluorishing. In his spare time, he enjoys badminton, industrial music and improv comedy.

Related

3 Responses

You are quite naive, kid. These people dont come here for your political ideals (yours – not ours); they come to get money, mostly legally, sometimes illegally.
That said, cant you even see the logical fault in your argument? You say the best thing of the Eu is its tolerance, and yet you want these guys to reject their own cultural background – because you dont like it. How is that going to work? Thats the tragedy of liberals: your core message is that all cultures, all ethnicities, all morals are ok so long as you dont bother other people – which is itself an imposition on people, that wont be allowed to enjoy those communal goods that requires communal mindset, like a certain view of families and societies. And these guys DO have their own ideas on how a society should be, and those clashes spectacularly with yours. You cant tolerate between unconciliable core values, you have to affirm yours – or abandon them. Thats why we have nations made of omogeneous ethnicities and cultures – over time, conflicts get resolved by the dominant culture crushing the others.

I agree that we can’t tolerate irreconcilable, core cultural differences which is why in the article I advocated immigration restrictions and the deportation of migrants who don’t respect the rule of law. The whole article is about the need for the cultural affirmation you alluded to.

However, I don’t agree that ethnic homogeneity makes a nation successful. Have you ever heard of the United States? Britain in fact has been an ethnically pluralist nation since the time of the Saxons, and that has never stopped British people being united by fundamentally liberal values, the values of the Magna Carta, John Locke and Margaret Thatcher.

A good culture, a culture that is conducive to human fluorishing, does not need to “crush” any others. Whether the kind of hellish race-war you are describing is inevitable or not is a matter for the metaphysicians and not for a mere political commentator such as myself, but I certainly wouldn’t advocate such a thing.

I’m not sure what a “communal mindset” is, but I do know that communities emerge spontaneously via free, human co-operation for mutual self interest, and that a liberal mindset is perfectly conducive to that (provided we don’t tolerate the people who want to burn us for apostasy).

The Usa are often mentioned as an example of melting pot, but imho it is an imprecise argument. For once, usa itself was born and considered itself anglo-saxon for the whole beginning of its life. Manifest destiny was born out of this: a strong belief in the superiority of the white anglo saxon culture. Even now, in the eye of the liberal storm, we have strong tensions between americans of european origins, blacks and latinos.

For england… just no. The magna charta is an example of coexistence? Hardly, as it was a merely power struggle between barons and the king. Instead, and much more significant for the popular culture, we have the King arthur saga which is based around celt resistance on saxons. Robins hood? Saxon resistance against normans. It took centuries for the latter two to unite (celts are still separated-they are quite prideful of being welsch) and this with a common language, religion, ethnic looks and the huge social pressure towards conformity in the middle age – something we, luckily i guess, lack today.

No one, me included, wish for a race war – which is not unavoidable. But historically, humans separate into groups based on ethnicities and cultures. A strong enough government and enough generations can provide a fusion… but today’s attitude is of coexistence, a nice but naive hope that the inherent problems in a non-omogeneous country will never blow up in our faces. Our future is not in a pacific, prosperous megalapolis where cultures happily coexist, as i have often heard from liberals. Our future is, it already is, at best the banlieu of Paris or the race riots in London, Australia and Usa; at worst, the bosnian civil war, the armenian genocide, the israely-palestinian prolonged war or the muslim shia-sunni millenial conflict, and its Isis modern branch.